I recently blogged about the Modesty Debate. For the most part, it garnered a great deal of support, and I thank you all for that.

But I have also received some rather interesting negative comments, and I would like to make some observations.

First, I never claimed that women should dress like harlots. In fact, I never commented on HOW women should dress at all (other than the statement “Dress like a daughter of the king.”) My ONLY point was that blaming the attire of a woman for the thoughts of men’s hearts is unbiblical, unhelpful and wrong. Perhaps I wasn’t clear.

It seems a bit strange that there were so many who took issue with that. Some said that since we still live in a fallen world, guidelines for dress are necessary, just like law in general. I find it interesting how little men understand their daughters and their wives. The assumption, again, is that if we men don’t lay down the law, our women will just rush right out to Backroom Boutique and buy stilettos and fishnets.

But this doesn’t seem to be the case. I don’t think that we will have a rush on miniskirts and tankinis any time soon, at least not from the readers of my blog. Those women that feel the inkling to do such might be better encouraged to examine their motives than to have someone lay down the law to them. The gospel goes to the heart. Should we not be interested in the hearts of women?

Second, please look at this masterful analysis of the modern trend towards “baring it all.” By connecting this sin with shame, the author hits the nail on the head. We as church leaders cannot assist women to overcome their shame by heaping on the shame! We must go the heart of the issue and direct them to Christ as human beings with dignity and worth. Too often, we simply get out the tape measure and start measuring skirts and think that the Holy Spirit is somehow impotent when it comes to the hearts of women. It’s the shame of the heart that must be dealt with, not the exposed ankle or knee! When shame is dealt with according to the gospel of Christ, the physical manifestations of shame will take care of themselves. Jesus told the Pharisees to clean the inside of the cup and the outside will be clean.

But we don’t stick around long enough to speak of these things because we are scared to death that the devil will get into us through an exposed cleavage!

Third, I was in no way saying that we must NEVER speak of how a woman dresses. Certainly we must speak to our daughters about appropriate and inappropriate attire. My beef was telling them that the way that they dress would lead men astray. THIS is what is unbiblical and wrong. Nowhere is the adultery of men’s hearts excused in scripture because of the seduction of the woman. The adultery is our own, gentlemen. And the only way to overcome it is by acknowledging that, taking full blame, and laying it at the foot of the cross.

1 Timothy 2:9 comes up a lot in these discussions and is relevant for how a woman dresses. But this text doesn’t mean what people think it means. It really isn’t speaking of exposed body parts at all. It is talking about dressing with respectful, well-ordered and beautiful clothing, appropriate to the occasion. Even if it does apply to covering body parts, notice that Paul does not say that the reason for this is to keep the men from lusting in their hearts.

The next passage used is 1 Peter 3:1-6. Just like 1 Timothy, the point is NOT that women should cover themselves up. This takes care of itself if the spirit is healthy. The point is that the adornment of the woman is NOT ultimately how much time she spends fixing her hair and jewelry, but in her good works. It is speaking of a godly woman’s true adornment, as opposed to outward show.

Notice also that Peter assumes that wives are big girls and don’t need their husbands to tell them how to dress. He assumes something that we men have a hard time with: that our wives are co-heirs of eternal life, are led themselves by the Holy Spirit, and can get themselves dressed all by their lonesomes without us laying down the law. If your wife starts putting on the stilettos and fishnets and heading to the bars at night, I might suggest that you could have a problem that a long denim skirt may not be able to fix.

So neither text really speaks to the issue that I was raising. In a short blog, you can’t address everything. I was ONLY speaking of the argument that women should cover themselves up to keep men from lusting.

I would say yes. However, that temptation is something that man should deal with, laying before God and asking Him to take it away–rather than the man blaming his temptation on a woman. Though it might increase the chances of temptation, it’s not the cause of it, because, let’s be honest, people will lust no matter how covered women OR men are.

THANK YOU for your article(s) on modesty. Finally, someone writing something about this that gets it.
I would also add that somehow, in the 21st century, we’ve lost all sense of place and appropriateness when it comes to dress. You don’t wear a ballgown to clean your bathroom, simply put. That same reasoning is why I don’t wear athletic wear and yoga pants to work, but hey, that’s just me!
I’ve been challenging my soon-to-be thirteen year old daughter to think about the purpose of clothing…what is the purpose, what is it designed for? How does what I wear intersect with the faith I profess?

Sadly, this follow-up article once again seems to ignore the teaching of Scripture that believers ARE responsible to not put stumblingblocks in the way of other Christians (Romans 14:13; I Corinthians 8:9). I do not say there ought to be modesty rules, and I would agree with the writer to the extent that a man who lusts must accept the blame for it himself, but in the sight of God a man’s acceptance of responsibility does not relieve the woman from her responsibility to dress in a becoming way, and not to be a stumblingblock. These responsibilities are not mutually exclusive, but should be seen as a joint responsibility to maintain holiness in God’s house.

Will not Delilah be held responsible for her seduction of Samson? And if there should be any further doubt as to this principle of an double responsibility, read about prophetic Jezebel in Revelation 2:20, “which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication . . .” No one is saying immodest clothing is in view here, but how can you separate the responsibility a woman bears for pushing the envelope in showing skin, from responsibility for any other kind of seduction?

Mutual responsibility is the key not only to this issue, but to others where one person can put a stumbling block before another person. I ask the question again, “Is there anytime one person can cause another person to stumble?” If there is anytime, then this is one of the times. While I believe Sam is framing the debat along lines I haven’t seen, I would stand along with him in correcting the man who blames immodestly dressed women for their lust. However, I would similarly correct the woman who argues that her immodest dress was not an occasion for someone stumbling. You see, there is in many issues a difference between a “cause” and “occasion”. The cause of any sin is to be found in our own heart, but that sin can be given an occasion to manifest itself in any number of ways depending what the particular sin is. So, what we strive for is not to give an occasion of stumbling!

I m am somewhat astounded that we who pride ourselves on our logic and reasoning have such a difficult time following a simple argument. It seems that perhaps there is something deeper going on.
First, I nowhere said that women are completely free from sin, nor did I ever imply that a woman will not be held accountable for seducing a man. Nor did I say or imply that one can cause a brother to stumble without impunity.
Please do not charge me with arguments that I did not make.
MY ONLY POINT IS THIS: Men, if your heart is full of lust, the blame is on you and you alone. It is because of your sinful nature which you inherited from Adam, and not because someone caused you to stumble.
Delilah has her own blame, but rather than speak of that on which scripture is silent, perhaps we should look at the account and see that Samson’s fall is nowhere blamed on Delilah. Of course, she will answer to God for any wrongdoing that she committed, but THAT ISN”T THE POINT!
The point is that Samson’s sin was imputed to Samson alone – never to Delilah.
God will never hold another accountable for MY sin. My sin is always on me.
That is all I will say on the subject.
As soon as we blame others for our own sin, we separate ourselves from Christ, we deny our own total depravity, and follow in the blameshifting of Adam.
Remember, Eve was naked in the garden and Adam was never charged with lust before the fall. The difference was the heart of Adam after the fall, not the amount of clothing Eve was wearing.